Obama in Egypt June 2009
At the J Street Conference last week, Anne-Marie Slaughter participated in a panel discussion, "Can America Still Help to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict -- and How?" Dr Slaughter, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, remarked that US "relations are strained with the old governments in the Middle East and with the new governments in the Middle East." She went on to say "those governments desperately want us to engage in the peace process" and that increasing our involvement was the best way to improve our relations with these countries.
I would argue that Slaughter is most probably wrong and that further stepped-up involvement in the so-called "peace process" will only lead to further alienation between the United States and Middle Eastern countries.
Although one heard calls at J Street for continuing or re-invigorating the "peace process" in order to keep alive the two-state solution, the more dominant message repeated throughout the conference was that the "peace process is dead." In his opening conference remarks. J Street's head, Jeremy Ben-Ami, stated that currently there is "no viable peace process." Israeli Hillel Ben-Sasson, co-founder of Solidarity Sheikh Jarrah, promised the very first panel that "there won't be any significant peace talks in the next 10 years" -- the hegemony of the Right in Israel is that strong.
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, founder of the Palestinian National Initiative, the third largest political movement among the Palestinians, told the second panel, "There is no peace process. It is dead. The peace process has become an alternative to peace…. There is no balance between the parties. There will be no solution until there is a change in the balance-of-power."
At the first day's plenum, Amram Mitzna, a former Major General in the IDF, former Mayor of Haifa and a one-time Labor candidate for Prime Minister, stated that for now we will not be able to achieve a comprehensive compromise such as the Geneva Agreement. At best, we "can reach agreement on borders and security." Mitzna sees "no viable alternative to Netanyahu" as Prime Minister and believes "US policy after the coming elections is very important." He hopes Obama will address the problem, and argued that Netanyahu "needs to be forced in this arena."
Responding to Mitzna, Avishay Braverman, a Labor Member of the Knesset and Ha'aretz columnist, quipped "If we wait for the American President, we will have to wait for the Messiah." Braverman seems to have the better grasp of American politics.
At yet another panel Gershom Gorenberg, Israeli author and journalist, passionately argued for the two-state solution, but his description of where we are today was most bleak. "The end game is what you see. We are at the the end game. [The Right] thinks it is sustainable. Their goal is to use hasbara to sell it. The Mainstream Right thinks they can keep going."
What leads Dr. Slaughter-- a former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, the initial Director of Policy Planning at the State Department in the Obama Administration, and now back at Princeton as a Professor of Politics and International Affairs-- to view the situation so differently. Perhaps, she doesn't. Slaughter didn't tell J Street that "peace" was in the interest of the US, but rather that the "peace process" was in its interest. "Failure to engage undercuts everything else we do in the region. We cannot say we stand for democracy, human rights and justice in the Middle East if we do not do it in Israel-Palestine."
Sounds more like a public relations problem rather than a conflict of values. In fact, Slaughter revealed her real concerns in a recent piece she wrote grading Obama for Foreign Policy Magazine. (Sort of like grading your own essay in my opinion.)
Obama's biggest failure has been the management of Israel -- not the failure to achieve a peace agreement, which is a serial failure on the part of many presidents -- but in framing the entire issue in such a way that once the United States had demanded an end to the settlements and Israel refused, any subsequent U.S. accommodation of Israel looks like capitulation to the very Muslim world that Obama set out to court. As a result, it is still not clear that Obama will accomplish one of his own top goals: resetting the U.S. relationship with the Muslim communities around the world.
Slaughter suggests a return to the "peace process" as a solution to a conflict management problem, not as a means to conflict resolution as J Street hopes.
How does the United States keep good relations with Jordan, Morocco, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, while at the same time maintaining its hegemony over the new realities in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Iraq?
The Arab monarchies have one overriding interest, keeping their autocratic, kleptocratic families in charge of their states or statelets for as long as possible. While a few of them might have well-meaning intentions for their populaces and the region, all will sacrifice whatever principles are necessary in order to maintain their family power and control. For those along the Gulf, the distribution of the oil spoils is the big prize.
Except for maybe Morocco, US military support and defense is absolutely essential to their security. These regimes could not survive without the US guarantee of protection from regime-changing internal and external threats. They will buck US direction when they perceive it to threaten their own rule, but certainly not to support Palestinian self-determination. We have seen such behavior for as long as there has been a so-called "peace process." The closest any of them reached to outright rebellion against the United States over the Palestinians is when the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia visited Crawford and coldly informed Bush II that if the United States was unable to resolve Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia would go its own way and protect its own interests. The 9/11 attack on the United States occurred shortly afterwards, and Saudi Arabia, fearing a severe US backlash, dropped the Palestinians off of their agenda where it has remained to this day.
Other Arab countries have had more than their fair share of despotic dictators with pretensions to create their own family dynasties. In those no longer under such rule -- Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya -- domestic politics and popular opinion will increasingly play a greater factor in foreign policy decisions going forward. It will require years to establish a new internal political stability in these countries, but the days when their leadership could ignore popular opinion and cut any deal they wanted with the United States (or Israel) are over.
Even with the unlikely assumption that the Palestinians have only a secondary say in the matter, there is no conceivable US negotiation position that will satisfy the Israelis, provide sufficient cover for its repressive Arab allies, and satisfy populist sentiment in the Arab Spring nations. Active US involvement in a renewed "peace process" -- which will only serve as an excuse for dampening the conflict at best and as a cover for continued Israeli expansion and settlement at worst -- will only alienate the Arabs further and will not reset US relations with the Muslim world.
Obama has demonstrated the likelihood that a Democratic President will coerce the Israelis into serious peace negotiations. The last Republican to take on Israel was Bush I. Since then, the Republicans have evolved into being more Likudnik than the Israeli Likud and appear to view the Right Wing Israeli coalition as a role model for how to govern. There is no reason to believe that the United States can mediate a successful conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What will break the current status quo? The United States is being edged out of Iraq and is on its way to being expelled from Afghanistan. Its military is tired and the troops wants to stay home and recover for some years. There is no longer any public will for more Middle East adventures. The American people might be fear-mongered into supporting one more campaign, but unless it was very short and highly effective, the economic fallout will put an end to further military offensives in the region for at least a decade.
Middle East states are already taking the initiative. Turkey has come out from under US tutelage and has embarked upon an independent foreign policy which includes a break with Israel and enhanced support for the Palestinians. Egypt by itself will change the region's dynamics from what it has been for the last thirty years. Unless Saudi Arabia is able to reverse or severely co-opt the new Arab governments, the trend towards more populist orientations will continue. For now, the Muslim Brotherhood is on a roll. As the new Arab governments consolidate their power and become stronger, the costs to the US for continually acting as Israel's lawyer will steadily rise.
It is only a matter of time before the Arab Spring leads to revolts against the Arab monarchies. At some point some of the new Arab governments will ally themselves to movements which resemble themselves as those movements rebel against the old Royal regimes. It is hard to envision how such an anachronistic form of government - absolute monarchy - can continue to survive modernization. Nowhere has such rule continued outside the Middle East and Bhutan. Jordan, without oil to buy off its populace, appears quite vulnerable. To date Saudi Arabia has taken matters into its own hands and has so far managed to suppress a revolt against the Bahrain monarchy, but the Bahraini population has not yet given up. Throughout its history Saudi Arabia has a track record of wasting enormous sums of money on failed foreign policy strategies. There is no reason to expect that it will succeed in pulling off a regional counter-revolution to smolder the Arab Spring movements.
The main and most difficult battleground will be in Saudi Arabia itself. Despite its enormous oil wealth, Saudi Arabia has a distressingly skewed income distribution. Keeping the ever expanding House of Saud supplied with the wealth it considers its birthright, while at the same time buying off a rapidly growing, youthful population has become a daunting task requiring, besides cash, one of the most repressive security apparatuses and extreme regime-serving religious sect money can buy. Only the last decade's rising oil prices have enabled keeping the lid on public discontent. Opening up Saudi politics is going to be a rough task. As Madawi Al-Rasheed just wrote in a perspicacious report in the Boston Review,
Saudi Arabia’s experience of the Arab Spring demonstrates that it lacks the structural conditions for mobilization, organization, and protest, let alone revolution. The economic and social deprivation, political oppression, and corruption that triggered revolutions elsewhere are all present in Saudi Arabia, but these alone are not sufficient to precipitate an uprising. Saudi Arabia does not have trade unions—the majority of its working population is foreign, which has stunted the growth of organized labor—a women’s movement, or an active student population, three factors that helped to make protests in Tunis and Cairo successful. Elsewhere in the Arab world, in the absence of these important factors, revolt stumbled, turned violent, and could not progress without serious foreign intervention. Libya is a case in point.
And that foreign intervention won’t come in Saudi Arabia, where oil ensures unconditional support from Western governments. Tunisia and Egypt were Western allies too, but they lack the kinds of resources that deter foreign meddlers. The same resources that also enable the Saudi king to appease the people....
If the delayed Arab Spring eventually reaches Saudi Arabia, it will likely be a bloody affair. Violent opposition is nothing new in Saudi Arabia, where jihadis have fought the state since 2003, and regime opponents took up arms in 1927, 1965, and 1979. In the absence of a tradition of peaceful protest and in the face of religiously sanctioned bans on even nonviolent activism, aggression against the regime and its enablers may again become the only option.
The waves of the Arab Spring will eventually reach Saudi Arabia in some form, and then Middle East transformation will be irreversible.
The statelets of the Persian Gulf will hang on to US protection for as long as possible. Small in size to begin with, their rather small ratio of citizens relative to total population, makes real statehood impossible. Despite efforts to ally with some Arab Spring movements, the Gulf States aim is to immunize themselves from internal changes. But they will not be able to avoid the developments in the rest of the Arab world once Saudi Arabia is in play. At that point, the United States will be asked to leave the region, except perhaps in Israel itself. With a much smaller footprint in the Middle East, less influence and mounting diplomatic costs for giving free rein of action to Israel, a new resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will finally become possible. Only then will the United States be able to help resolve the conflict. However, its role will be much reduced and it will no longer be the essential party.
Military conflict with Iran, and the resulting chaos, will only hasten the United States retreat from the region.
I find this rather odd odd, because the Arab states have from the outset (circa 1917-20) to today, argued for Palestinian self determination per the LoN Charter, the UN Charter, International Law. They have continued to host refugees for 63 years, costing countless billions. They have fought wars on behalf of the Palestinians, costing countless billions. They’ve changed their legislation to ensure Palestinian refugees have not lost their status/RoR. All of which has been done at enormous cost.
What peaceful options for ” outright rebellion ” are there for those Arab State who’re not oil rich?
Slaughter and people like her must protect their jobs, reputations, etc. Hence they make minute indications and give small nudges but — unlike radicals — refuse to make big demands and pronouncements for change.
Is she calling for better USA PR or for a change in policy? Who cares? Unless Obama is willing to cut loose from AIPAC and all its minions (including Congress) and pursue an independent FP, his hands are tied. If he is very, very clever and lucky, AIPAC will self-destruct by pushing too hard for war with Iran and thus by painting itself as a Fifth Column in vivid colors (Blue and White). Perhaps the plenipotent Park Slope Food Coop will reverse its vote and carry 74% of NYC media folks along on the crest of pro-justice-for-Palestine victory! As if.
I put my hope on independent action by an outraged and enraged (and soon to be independent) international community — EU, Brazil, Turkey, India, other South Americans, maybe China and Russia, etc. — to perform a full court press on Israel by nation-level BDS. (For ease of reference, call this I/C “the Messiah”.)
I don’t expect this to happen soon or even at all — but I especially don’t expect anything else (anything initiated by USA or Israel or the Arab States or the PLO) to happen, ever. It is in this latter sense that 2SS is dead and apartheid 1SS is alive, prospering, and permanent.
“Turkey has come out from under US tutelage and has embarked upon an independent foreign policy which includes a break with Israel and enhanced support for the Palestinians”
Turkey has just cut imports of Iranian oil by 20% as requested by Hillary.
As long as the middle East supplies oil to the West the US will meddle. I think Israel will collapse before the oil runs out.
Private Eye magazine had an amazing report on what is going on at New International, Murdoch’s company, since the tables turned on them last year. They were a secretive cabal a bit like the Zionists and had access to the highest levels of power like the Zionists and were untouchable like the Zionists.
Will Lewis is a senior NI manager who is now turning in his own journalists to the police. 2 senior journalists have attempted suicide.
One day the Feds are going to walk all over the Ziobots. They’ll see collaboration from the other side.
Amazing, and so sad. I had to read it several times, since I couldn’t believe. So his only mistake was to ask? Interesting glimpse into the mindset of the American elites. The West-Eastern mindset as long as you are part of the elite. Makes me feel very, very miserable.
Anti-Americanism = antisemitism as was suggested in the post-911 world. It has been there all along. The “good” powerfully successful (the mono-oligarchy circles of old) versus the “evil”, ugly and envious. America the success story, Israel the success story + miracle. With all that land belonging to no one, and it shouldn’t take it?
very, good piece Bruce.
Pat Lang writes, that the military will not let this at to happen, it would threaten the assets they amassed. If history can teach any lectures, a revolution must not necessary change anything for the better. Egypt’s military can shop the latest tools in crowd-control in Israel. Maybe help a little with drones in Gaza from its side?
An excellent analysis! I wholeheartedly concur (VIDEO, 01:53) with “doctor” Wolman.
Obama tried to get the Israelis to freeze the settlement process and they refused. It is absurd (and ultimately counterproductive) to continue the so-called “peace process” while Israel feverishly works to permanently foreclose any possibility of a two-state solution by creating more and more “facts on the ground”.
“The Israel/Palestine conflict will be resolved when Arab countries kick the U.S. out of the region” is the headline, but surely, what the writer means (and yearns) is “The Israel/ARAB conflict will be resolved when Arab countries kick the THE JEWS out of the region”.
if he’d meant that he woulda written it. he doesnt feel that way, i am sure
asherpat,
It’s the ZIONISM stupid.
It ain’t the “jews” that the natives object to and want to be rid of – it’s vile racist repressive colonialist ZIONISM!
Right, they’re fine with Jews as long as the Jews are properly subservient dhimmis. That’s why there are so many Jews in Arab countries in the Middle East, and why there weren’t 850,000 Jews kicked out of Arab countries after Israel won its war of independence. Because the Arabs just loooove the Jews.
fred, israel made every effort to accommodate arab jews coming to israel, including initiating transferring populations with the iraq’s gov (british colony at the time) as i recall.
Fredblogs,
Go back to history school you miserable rusty old robot!
Your racism stops you ashkanazis from ‘knowing’ what an Arab really is, or what an Arab really loves.
Again I repeat: It’s the zionism STUPID!
Annie,
I had no idea that fredblogs needs Arab love so badly! I mean unless all Arabs loved all jews with all their hearts now and till eternity, well the zionists just don’t feel ‘complete’ now do they?!
Never mind he’s conflating jews with zionism – again! So needy! So frigging boring!
taxi, james north is right. fred needs to take a lil trip to hasbara central and inform them he’s in way over his head here.
As long as Israel exists as a Jewish country, the Jews of Israel will be relatively safe whether the Palestinians love Jews or hate them. If the Israelis were stupid enough to let the Palestinians take over, then Israel would be an Arab country. Suddenly it would be very relevant whether the Palestinians hated them or not.
Every other Arab country expelled or persecuted the Jews there so badly that 850,000 people fled to Israel. That was almost the entire Jewish population of the Middle East, outside of a few in Iran and those in Israel. Think about how badly you’d have to oppress a minority that almost every single member of that minority leaves your country. Things sucked for the blacks in the U.S. between the civil war and the civil rights era, only a minority of them left. So just how bad do things have to get for _everybody_ in a minority group, en mass, to leave and go to another country where they don’t even speak the language?
The Jews in Israel have no reason to think they would fare any better under Palestinian rule than those 850,000 did under Arab rule elsewhere. That’s because the Arabs persecuted them (them, the Jews, not zionists, Jews), not just because Israel invited them. The Jews of Europe were invited to Israel too, but a substantial fraction of the remaining (after the Holocaust) Jews stayed in Europe. Think about that, even after the Holocaust, Europe was still inviting enough that lots of Jews stayed there, Arab countries? Nope.
Israel is not going to let the Palestinians take over because it has learned from history.
because Jews aren’t a race
for all intent and purpose here, that is irrelevant. your edification:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Fred, you forgot the part about where the Jews fear that the Arabs are going to steal the Jews’ precious bodily fluids!!!
Fred
What are you going to do when the 17 oligarchs decide to ditch the Jewish state and accept citizenship and full rights for all the Palestinians in return for guaranteed access to the markets of the Arab League?
Fredblogs, that rhetoric doesn’t work here.
Start at the beginning. Like around 1882 or so. That was when the first -pre-Zionist ‘aliyah’ of European colonists came to not only colonize Palestine, but they came with delusions of grandeur to create the Genesis 15 ‘land of Israel’
These colonists were funded by Edmond de Rothschild who set up the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association to buy land in Ottoman Palestine.
The PJCA was later willed to the JNF and the Rothschilds family has maintained influence since. Another Rothschild, Walter Rothschild who was Edmond’s cousin, is who the Balfour Declaration was addressed to. Balfour admit that the declaration would allow the British to carry out ‘useful propaganda’ toward the USA and Russia. That one dynasty is primarily responsible for creating “Israel”
Edmond de Rothschild’s $50 million contribution to Zionist ‘aliyah’ would be well over $1 billion today, adjusted for inflation. Ironically, Edmond once stated “the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its result, the creation of the Wandering Arab.” Herzl said something similar.
Anyways, the colonists were not good neighbors. It was well known that the early and pre-Zionists aspired to gain control of a lot of terrirory. It was for that reason Sultan Abdul Hamid II reneged on selling them land in what’s now the West Bank. Emphasis on bad neighbors. Some of this was the Ottoman’s fault because of their absentee land owner property. People were told to leave property they thought they owned so European colonists could live there. But the other part is just that this movement has been insane from the outset. And never once did they distinguish a Jewish Arab from a non-Jewish Arab. They oppressed all of them including the ‘Old Yishuv’ Arab Jews of Palestine. They clashed with the colonists along side their fellow Palestinians.
This has become mostly lost due to the propaganda and historical revision coming from your side. Palestinian Jews were even unfairly included in the Partition plan to boost the Jewish population statistics. And as others have said, Israel directly and indirectly had Arab Jews moved to Israel. Indirectly because they have clandestine methods of carrying out these sort of things. Even today, like that guy arrested last year in Egypt promoting sectarian violence.
Arabs didn’t become “Amalekites” until Israel PR turned them into them. And that story about the Grand Mufti has been exaggerated and used to oppress Palestinians as collectively responsible for the holocaust. There are Jewish populations in “Arab States” contrary to popular belief. Just not in Saudi Arabia. Not a whole lot, but not ALL of them like you said. I also don’t doubt that historical revisionism has exploited Arabian history to make it look like, for example, all the Jews of Medina were slaughtered. Muhammad was of the Quraysh tribe that took care of the Kaaba. An allegedly massacred Jewish tribe in Medina called Qurayza were tax collectors. I doubt the similarity is a coincidence. Both names mean Cyrus.
BTW, wtf with the civil rights thing? Only a minority ‘left’ you say? I’m not aware of them going anywhere. In fact, since the civil rights era their population statistics have grown.
@Charon. A picture worth 1000 words:
link to en.wikipedia.org
The stories about the grand Mufti are not exaggerated, the man helped the Germans recruit Muslims for SS units. Go study.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Unfortunately, Taxi, the governments who expelled the Jews also conflated Judaism and Zionism.
It might be trivial to you but in numbers, land and property it counts as ethnic cleansing and its part of the story of Israel which does not mitigate Palestinian rights but does mitigate the notion of Israel as only a European colonial settler state.
toky,
Sorry mate, you’re utterly mistaken/propagandized. The governments that expelled the Arab jews (native jews) fell into the israelis PR and black op traps set up by the diabolical ashkanazi zionists for them – them ashkiz WANTED native jews to be expelled (for suspicion of dual loyalty) so they would be FORCED to move to occupied Palestine and enhance the ‘jewish’ demographic.
The ONLY people who gained a wicked advantage conflating judaism with zionism are the rogue euro israelis – not the Arabs, be they jew, moslem or christian.
@Fredblogs,
Yes, he met Hitler personally. And that makes Palestinians responsible for the Holocaust how? Again, exaggerated to comical proportions. This photo has been exaggerated. His ‘power’ has been exaggerated (he had none). Go read the talk section on his Wikipedia article for some laughs.
This one guy has been used to make the Palestinians proxy accomplices to the Holocaust. Based on your response, you actually believe that. How sad
So wait, Taxi, were Jews expelled or not?
So double wait tok,
Did the diabolical israeli ashkanazim set it up or what?!
And just so we’re clear – many Arab jews, like the Lebanese jews, gave the middle finger to the criminal israeli swndles. Why? Cuz Lebanese jews, like most Arab jews, are not religious whores and squatters.
The only place Jews were forcibly expelled was from Egypt after Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt in 1956, and the only Jews expelled were those who had British or French citizenship (along with other non-Jews who had similar citizenship) and not Egyptian citizenship. You might want to read Joel Beinin on Egyptian Jews.
In all other Arab countries, although some Jews may have had bad times and feared for their lives because they were associated in the minds of some Arabs with the actions of Israel, no Jews were forcibly expelled from any other Arab country. In many cases, Arab countries had laws against their Jewish citizens immigrating to Israel, and only relented under considerable pressure from Western countries, only to be later falsely accused of expelling them instead.
We’ve had numerous Zionist apologists here proclaim that all Jews have a strong attachment to Jerusalem and Israel, that Jews everywhere constitute a nation, and that Jews naturally have an overriding concern for other Jews, and yet at the same time they insist that all the Arab Jews came to Israel because they were “expelled”. You can’t logically believe in both. I understand that belief in Zionism defies logic, but think about it for the moment. A large number of Arab Jews went to Israel because of messianic feelings, attachment to other Jews and concerns for Jewish safety in Israel, because they were induced with promises and monetary rewards, or because they wished to join relatives there. Some may have likewise felt insecure in their home countries, most specifically because they were mentally associated with a country that was grossly mistreating Arabs in the name of being “the state of all Jews”, and sometimes even because that same country, Israel, sought to make their lives more insecure so as to push them to “make aliyah”.
The largest number of Arab Jews came from Morocco, over a span of ten or so years from the 50′s to the sixties , and yet there are few to no reports of any attempts to push them out of Morocco and there are reports of attempts to retain them in Morocco, and to get them to return. The King of Morocco was, after all, the one who refused to turn over the names of his Jewish subjects to the Vichy government that ruled Morocco during WWII. Most of those Jews who first left for Israel were younger, and more adventuresome, and they were eventually followed by their parents who wished to retain family ties. Eventually, with a shrinking demographic steeped in endogamy, the population reached a point of unsustainability.
In Iraq, during and immediately after the 1948 War, Jews were banished from government jobs. Reprehensible, yes,, but it pales in comparison to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and even compared to the US internment of our own Japanese American citizens. Interestingly, I’ve read numerous books and articles by Iraqi Jews and they all, to some extent retain a fondness for the Iraq in which they had lived, and many of them display a resentment of Israel which would not be present if they were expelled by Iraq and welcomed by Israel. You might want to try reading Shiblak’s “Lure of Zion”, Shabti’s “We Look Like the Enemy” , Rejwan’s “The Last Jews in Baghdad”, and Woolfson’s “Prophets in Babylon”, or even the writings of Avi Shlaim , whose parents came from Iraq, on his life growing up in Israel. And David Shasha and Ella Shohat are also worth a read.
>> Yes, he met Hitler personally. And that makes Palestinians responsible for the Holocaust how?
According to this Wiki article:
>> In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. … Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik went to Beirut to meet German official Werner Otto von Hentig … On the assumption that the destruction of Britain was the Germans’ top objective, the organization offered [to] support sabotage and espionage operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe anywhere where they had cells. … Stern also proposed to recruit some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to invade Palestine with German support to oust the British.
It would seem that the Mufti had nothing on the Jewish terrorist Avraham Stern.
No, the white man is not the source of all good and evil on planet earth. Blaming the Ashkenazim for the decision of Arab run governments to expell their Jews is enfeebling, nearly racist, and by the way the exactly of excuse used to excuse the nakba: Well their generals told them to leave.
Do you actually believe that by the way?
You are either for or against expulsions and if you are for them when it suits your politics than you are just a partisan.
Blaming the Ashkenazim for the decision of Arab run governments to expell their Jews is enfeebling, nearly racist, and by the way the exactly of excuse used to excuse the nakba:
Yes, it would be, but since no Arab government did that (with the exception of Jewish foreign citizens in Egypt) its likewise enfeebling, racist and most of all dishonest to continue to claim that they did.
That’s absolute rubbish and been debunked countless times. They migrated to Israel of their own accord, often cornered not by Arabs, but by Zionists, only to be later exploited as cheap labor.
Wikipedia is your source? Wikipedia is occupied. Keep trying to give credibility and status to the old Mufti that had no influence and was a nobody by that time.
@asherpat
You are quite the mind reader, even though your reading comprehension skills are challenged. I wouldn’t quit your day job and turn professional if I was you.
The more appropriate metaphor may turn out to be “both sides are not going to quit until they kill each other.” I am more optimistic though.
Once the United States (and its minion the EU) stops treating Israel as a rich, spoiled offspring which has been allowed to terrorize the neighbors and manipulate the parents, then I expect the Israeli well-honed – hopefully not forgotten – pragmatism to kick in, resulting in a deal with the Palestinians and the key Arab States to remain in the region. Israelis tend to be less worried about “shame” or “losing face,” and most concerned about not joining the “frayerim.” This outlook will facilitate a resolution once they figure out that building the World’s Largest Ghetto for themselves is not going to work.
As for leaving the region, I am not sure Israel will be able to stop the long-term brain drain of its professional and high-tech educated secular population. At J Street, emigration from Israel was already an alarming issue for a number of the Israelis.
Here’s the problem: If (and its a big, big if) the US “gets kicked out of the Middle East” – what do we think happens? I’ll tell you: We’ll double down in Asia and other parts of the world. The “pivot” to Asia?
Seems to me that the US has engaged in bloody shooting wars directly and indirectly, across the globe for over a century. It also seems like we just take for granted that a “US withdrawal” from the region will mean a “US Invasion” (for lack of a better term) of other regions. And here’s the kicker – alot of “palestinian solidarity” cats will cheer it on. Juan Cole, for example, detests the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but was “Bombs away” in regards to Libya. The list goes on and on.
This to me is the problem with focusing so much on a relatively small part of the “american empire” and by confusing things even further with “identity” politics. The idea of anti-war/pro-democracy Americans having to wait around for their Saudi counterparts to start a potentially violent revolution really says it all. It says we are much more interested in being comfortable than doing what is necessary, and Im not talking about taking up arms and all that jazz – Im talking about tossing aside all our little pet projects and focusing on the real core problems, that we can all agree on: (1) There is no rule of Law in the US (2) Our Government operates in near total secrecy (3) We live in a oligarchic society that grants undo power and influence to the wealthiest among us
In other words, we need to kick the US government out of the US. Then there will be no more “pivots” and the continuation of the “whack-a-mole” foreign policy.
A clear and insightful reponse to an obtuse analysis.
What do you think about Slater’s statement, David?
What do you think about Slater’s statement, David?
What are you referring to?
” I’ll tell you: We’ll double down in Asia and other parts of the world. The “pivot” to Asia? ”
Definitely going on. the doubling down
We won’t kick the US govt out of the US. But what will happen is that the US, in the medium-term will start looking more like Great Britain than the global hegemon.
The idea of anti-war/pro-democracy Americans having to wait around for their Saudi counterparts to start a potentially violent revolution really says it all. It says we are much more interested in being comfortable than doing what is necessary, and Im not talking about taking up arms and all that jazz – Im talking about tossing aside all our little pet projects and focusing on the real core problems, that we can all agree on: (1) There is no rule of Law in the US (2) Our Government operates in near total secrecy (3) We live in a oligarchic society that grants undo power and influence to the wealthiest among us.
I’m not sure it “really says it all,” but it says a great deal. What is more likely to happen, the United States dealing with its “real core problems” or Saudis rebelling against their highly repressive rulers? About two-thirds of Americans are too comfortable and one-third of Americans too stressed out to “do what is necessary” to reform America. Even the majority of Greeks are to date unwilling to give up whatever they have left and recognize what they need to do to reconstitute their country. They would rather sacrifice the future of their young and sign up for an externally imposed decade of decline instead. And I don’t write this with any joy.
Not convinced its wrong to focus on the Middle East locus of the “American Empire”. In terms of resources and lives consumed, it is hardly a small part, it is currently where most of the action is. The US elite may “pivot” the country towards Asia one day, but its freedom of action is going to be far more constrained than what it currently faces in the Middle East. Addressing the challenge from Asian economies rather than devoting most resources to Middle East “terrorism” will by itself indicate a sobering up to reality.
If you have a strategy for getting America to deal with “its real core problems,” please reveal. I will gladly give up my other “pet projects.”
What is more likely to happen, the United States dealing with its “real core problems” or Saudis rebelling against their highly repressive rulers?
— More likely? Who knows. Not you or I, thats for sure. One thing is for sure – the saudi’s rebelling will be a lot bloodier. We live in a pretty open society (especially relative to ME monarchies) and can effect change without widespread violence; rooting it on in saudi arabia, in order to make the changes you/I want to see in the US, is pretty distasteful in my opinion. The Saudi’s shouldnt have to do our dirty work.
As for the Greeks – their population has little to no say in what goes on there. And they are out in the streets daily, and have been. You do the Greeks an extreme disservice by equating them with Americans. I agree with your points about americans.
“The US elite may “pivot” the country towards Asia one day, but its freedom of action is going to be far more constrained than what it currently faces in the Middle East. Addressing the challenge from Asian economies rather than devoting most resources to Middle East “terrorism” will by itself indicate a sobering up to reality.”
————————————-
What do you mean “one day”? Korea,Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia – the genocide we supported in East Timor, shall I continue? The US empire in every region goes through “hot and cold” periods in different regions, but it never “leaves.”
I cant believe I just read “addressing the challenges from asian economies” here. What “challenges” are “we” talking about here? A potentially higher standard of living in Asia? How horrible. Asian countries entering into commercial agreements not sanctioned by the US? E-gads. There’s probably nothing else to say here, Bruce. It seems like you have internalized the imperial mindset. You dont have a problem with the US doing it what it does, you just don’t like the killing. I get that.
As for strategies — “dont follow leaders, and watch your parkin’ meters”
Jokes aside, the only thing anyone of conscience can do is to organize calls for boycotts, strikes and so on. Economic sanctions are the only arrow in the quiver. But that would require people taking their “left handed transgenders for student debt relief” hats. But we all know how much activists love themselves, so thats gonna be tricky.
@Dan Crowther
You seem to regularly confuse the descriptive or the predictive with wish fulfillment. Describing Saudi Arabia does not equate to “rooting” violence on it, as if my predicting violent change in Saudi Arabia at Mondoweiss is going to have any effect on what happens there one way or another. I haven’t said a word about what I would want to occur in Saudi Arabia.
As for effecting change in “open society” America (particularly directed towards its “Imperial mindset” and the conceit of its own Exceptionalism), I’ve been waiting to observe any significant trends since returning to the States ten years ago, and I don’t find them. I mostly observe passivity, despair or right-wing populism. Please let me know what I am missing.
Meanwhile, the US exercises a great deal of violence both internally and externally to maintain the status quo. An “open society” wouldn’t lead the world in incarceration nor adopt a constitutional tenet of “One dollar, One vote” for everything. Watching the oppression already invoked against the slightest acts of rebellion do not auger well for peaceful change.
I certainly hope I am wrong about the majority of Greeks, but I am just reading the polling, which show majorities for staying in the Eurozone and not defaulting on their debt even though they expect the austerity and negative growth to continue indefinitely. The Greeks have an election coming up – and unlike in the US – they have parties which represent real choices. This gives them a big say in what happens post-election day. And in no way was I disparaging those Greeks in the streets each day. In fact, I stated their futures were being sacrificed by the majority to keep the economy from resetting. But in case you have not noticed, “social solidarity” in Europe is lower today than its been for a hundred years. In that respect Europe is converging towards the United States.
As for Asia, it may be a “cold” period in US activity towards the Pacific, but unlike you, I believe Asia has thrown off the yoke of the US and will never again be strapped to serve primarily US interests. Asian countries are looking out for their own perceived concerns quite successfully. The US may have leverage with those countries looking for some counterweight to China, but do you expect there will ever be another Vietnam war or US imperial adventure in Asia?
What is the “challenge from asian economies” for the US that even mentioning it gives you the vapors? Perhaps understandably after the treatment they received during the Crisis of 1997-1998, most Asian countries have consciously built-up their currency reserves and have adopted export-led growth strategies. This has resulted in insufficient global demand and a destabilized global economy. Moreover, the economic elite in the United States decided to export our financial, physical and intellectual capital to China and Asia, as well as impart 20-30 years of US consumer marketing know-how to newly established manufacturers that would not have had a clue otherwise. This accelerating transfer to Asia, while at the same time 300 million or more relatively low-wage new workers were added to the global labor market has has had a deleterious effect on US and European workers (who happen to be more productive than ever). America’s commitment to neo-liberal economics is not going to solve these difficulties. The economic transition in the US will have to be managed, as is done in many other countries.
Despite your faulty mind-reading, I have no objections to countries entering into commercial agreements outside the sanction of the US or even the WTO. However, there are win-win solutions to the issues I raise, but they will require a major reorganization of global and regional economic structures and new economic ideologies in the United States and Europe. I don’t see any reason Americans should keep buying Chinese goods, while China puts the money earned in the safe or loans it back to us. Let them spend the money on US goods or let currencies rates adjust to balance trade flows.
If all this sounds to you as just “internalized imperial mindset,” that is your mind echoing. It’s unrealistic to expect anyone to fully discuss global economics in a few comment paragraphs, so maybe you should lighten up on the barbs and the jumping to conclusions.
You keep making these cracks against all kinds of different activists, especially those involved in “identity politics” or those advocating or using tactics you do not find efficacious. True, the efforts of some are not addressing the questions that matter to you, but that does not make them unimportant. Organizing “calls for boycotts, strikes and so on” have also provided very mixed results throughout history. They are not the only strategies for change. In any case, there is almost no organizing of boycotts, strikes, etc. in the comments section of Mondoweiss. So maybe you should hang out here less and organize more in places that matter, that is if you are willing to accept your own critique.
Thats a whole lot of words for saying very little Bruce.
We all read your article. you gave a blow by blow of “how” the I/p conflict was going to be resolved ( i totally disagree with your analysis btw) and it included admittedly violent revolutions across the middle east as a requirement all because (as you again admit) americans and westerners generally cant get off their ass, or are pre-occupied by hand held technology, tv or in some cases ineffective activism. Why not write that article? Why not write the post that says “hey fckin asshole americans, and especially so called american liberals, we’re now in a position where the only thing that can save us is violent revolutions in countries half a world away”
As for my general disdain for “activists” – I played competitive sports my entire childhood, we kept score. Ever since the real left sold out to the democratic party (in the 30′s and the 60′s) theres been no meaningful “left”
If people cant admit that “we’ve lost” and that its time to radically rethink some things, well -I dont know what to tell you. Our society has gotten nothing but harder as the number of “activist” groups has grown, not saying they are connected, but whatever else is true, we’re in a pretty bad way, and no one should be ridiculing the guy ridiculing the current “left”
@Dan Crowther
Okay Dan, more words. I went and read a number of your comments so I could get a better sense of your views and positions.
I thought I did write the article you suggested. My very point is that all indications show that change in Israel/Palestine and the Middle East is going to emanate from there not here. The United States – much to my frustration – is a status quo nation. It does not want to change. Saying that is not the same as declaring the United States cannot change. No doubt change is being forced upon it, and in response the United States may very well take the reactionary road (in 30′s and ’60s leftist language).
As you yourself say, there is no “meaningful left” left in America, but that is not because it sold out, it is because it got beat, beat badly. And the “meaningful left” certainly figured out it lost. It didn’t need to see a scorecard. That is the main reason its serious adherents dropped out or splintered into other, more achievable activisms. Many mistakes were made, but all the tactics and strategies that you suggest of which I’ve read, were tried and experimented with. Some groups even attempted armed violence, which showed itself to be amateur adventurism rather quickly. The majority like myself who weren’t willing to take that next step realized they had reached a cul-de-sac. If you have radically re-thought the strategy, then please provide some links explaining such.
This posting is more speculative than what I’m comfortable writing. Although I deny your claim that I gave a “blow-by-blow” account of how I/P was going to be resolved, it does make some predictions about the future, which as you assert, is not for certain knowable. I loosely expressed these views to your main man Phil during J Street, and he challenged me to write them up. That gave me a chance to clarify my perspective further. Not sure whether Phil was impressed with the ideas or eager to write a title which would get me on the no-fly list. If someone has a better take, fine. You totally disagree, so write-up your analysis! I have no problem conceding to a superior argument.
If you want to call yer fellow Americans “fckin assholes” that is your prerogative. It doesn’t work for me, and I’m not sure that will encourage them to join your new team. In my conversations with friends I can ridicule the Democrats activists and liberals as well as anyone, but I realize my disdain is little more than crowd noise. It is not going to move the team down the field. Perhaps, your revealed game plan will change my view.
hahaha!! your alright with me Bruce! Bruce, brother I dont have a team. I get a little hot under the collar, especially when Im at work (which is when I do my commenting) Frankly, Ive been to innumerable group meetings, spent a ton of time at occupy boston (you name it, ive tried it out, and gotten a sense of what most activists are doin’). And its incredibly frustrating; the “process” in occupy, the complete unwillingness to state the inconvenient truths as not to “offend” and the near total detachment of activist groups from the greater society.
I find the “left” to be deeply, deeply authoritarian, as 99% of left activism is about changing the minds of the ruling class, anointing its own to be members of the ruling class, and doing so within the context of “winning the battle for the true soul of america” — in large part, the left offers the same patriotic, nationalistic world view the right does, only the arbitrary definitions of things are different.
And when I look around, I find that really only the Ron Paul cats are holding true to the traditions of enlightenment liberalism – however misguided in their uber capitalism they might be. I think the left needs to go back and read Von Humboldts “limits of state action” and think long and hard about their advocacy of “better government” in the form of more and more institutions. My personal view is that the focus should be on “what has to go” rather than what can be created – institutionally speaking- to reform our government and society. We need a real libertarian left.
And I think americans are ready to hear a left wing criticism and denouncement of modern american “liberalism” – look at gorgeous george galloway in britain. first time ever a left winger took a seat from labor when they were in the opposition. And galloway hardly minces his words – and people respond to it.
I don’t know when I’ve seen an article that just so clearly speaks to the very basis of the problem like this one does – the conflict will be resolved when the Israeli Lobby’s mitts are taken OFF the Middle East
Absolutely right on …
The US has been the biggest impediment to Middle East Peace because the Israeli Lobby dictating foreign policy has been in charge on the policy – and the last thing they want (completely in synch with the Israeli facists themselves) is peace, other than a prostrate Bantustan-like ‘virtual state of Palestine’, which is essentially no different than what they have right now, except for more Israeli entrenchment in the West Bank
Beautiful article – makes my morning
The Israeli/Israeli framing of the argument is over when articles like this so effectively demolish that frame – for too long the Israelis dictated the framework of the argument itself
Yes!
Putting aside all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, the world definitely took a turn since that event. Consider if the hijackers were mostly Syrians and not Saudis, Syria today would be a Nuclear wasteland. But, since they were Saudis, the US in effect gave Saudi Arabia life if it gave up everything else. So in reality, I think Saudi Arabia no longer exists and the US has taken over this country as a way to keep it alive or else.
This in effect means the US runs the GCC and Qatar is a prime example of those willingly bending over to accept their new masters and to do the devil’s work.
What’s left, well nothing really. Saudi Arabia will never turn, well at least not as long as there is oil there. If a rebellion starts there before then, i am willing to bet the US will treat it like a rebellion in Texas and will go all the way to squash it. Saudi Arabia no longer exists as a sovreign country and those running it are nothing more than employees of the state dept.
So what will happen with the Palestinians, nothing. Those who stay behind will accept 3rd citizen status and the rest will move, Jordan, Syria, anywhere else but Israel. There is nothing more that Netanyahou would love to see than a 3rd intafada. The mass explusion after that will be a historical event but no one will lift a finger to stop it.
Today the ICC gave Israel a carte blanche to kill all the Palestinians the want with no
reprecussion. The ICC stated that since the PA is not a recognized state, they can not file a complaint against Israel for the 2009 massacres. So look out, the 2009 atrocities never existed and Israel can do it again and again and again. Its a new world alright.
What was the ICC’s rationale for saying that Palestine was not an internationally recognized state? Surely very many countries do recognize it.
International Criminal Court in The Hague says reason for decision is that Palestine is currently recognized by the United Nations as an ‘observer,’ not a ‘Non-member State’.
link to haaretz.com
Slaughter “”Failure to engage undercuts everything else we do in the region. We cannot say we stand for democracy, human rights and justice in the Middle East if we do not do it in Israel-Palestine.”
Slaughter running behind those who have been saying this for decades.
Barghouti others saying peace process is dead sure looks like reality. As Mearsheimer has said Israel’s ever expanding illegal settlements will only leave one choice. One state. Israel on the path of more exposure on their apartheid state.
Slaughter has been all over the place saying that diplomacy with Iran has been “exhausted” She really does seem to be an Israeli operative similar to Dennis Ross. When she was on Chris Hayes Up program when Jeremy Scahill would state facts about the conflict Slaughter would resort to inflammatory statements about Iran. Always attempting to avert attention from the facts on the ground
Couple of details I don’t agree with but overall agree—as long as the US is involved there will be no peace or Palestine. And agree that ME autocrat’s first concern is holding onto their thrones. Saudi is going along to get along right now because Iran has been thrown into the mix by Israel.
Dont’ agree that the US is necessary to keep autocrats and kings in rule—they are capable of putting down their own people as we have seen. What kingdoms like Saudi depend on is US protection/intervention in the event of a ‘large conflagration’ of ME states warring against each other. That is the umbrella the US offers them–which is in effect a protection from the Sunni -Shiite problem between ME states. Otherwise they are perfectly capable of handling any Arab spring without material support from the US.
The big mystery of power and how it’s maintained by the US though isn’t really a mystery. Although Saudi, the UAE and other Gulf oil states hold all the real power in relation to the US and Europe by virtue of oil—the US and Israeli success in the ME has been in keeping ME states divided, some by US aid given to them and some by the US protection umbrella extended to those like Saudi.
“If” the US took it’s hands off the ME the chances of the ME states coming into agreement on their own problems would increase because it would be either come to agreements or face chaos, or at minimum constant on going small wars in which all the rulers chances of losing would increase with time.
What’s going on now is the Arab states are sitting on their hand waiting to see how Iran plays out .It’s interesting that several years ago Iran made overtures to Saudi to convince Saudi it had no aggressive intentions toward them and they held a few state to state pow wows talks. But now that Iran has been made ‘an enemy’ of the US Saudi is basically doing nothing.
This is the kind of classic example W&M gave on how Israel must always shit stir in the ME, not only to keep it’s US “only ally” status, but to also do it by singling out a ME state as a regional ‘threat’ to keep the whole region at odds and wary of what could happen, preventing any kind of coalition or agreement between them.
Whereas the US policy in the ME “use to be” stability thru ‘balancing powers” of the ME” now it’s replaced with Israel’s policy of “destabilizing” powers to maintain ‘one’ power–Israel’s own “threat hegemony”.
NOTHING will change after the election !
The last time the US had any influence on Israel was in October 1956, when Ike forced Israel, the UK and France to withdraw immediately from the Suez and Sinai.
NONE of the eight presidents since the 1967 Six Day War had any say in what Israel did or did not want to do.
Don’t blame Obama or the other “feeble-seven” guys. Blame it on Arab oil.
Israel is now the US’s ace in the hole while playing the great Arab oil game with this strange symbiotic US-Israel military relationship :
The US gets rid of its second-hand military toys in exchange for Arab oil, and Israel gets top of the line military hardware so as to keep the oil producers and all Arabs demanding more toys to “defend” themselves (read, slaughter their own people, which is the only thing they could possibly do), while the West feels virtuous. A marriage made in heaven.
Every US president since June 1967 has been committed to the supremacy of the Israeli armed forces. Consequently, should there be war all Arab armies combined would be destroyed by Israel ( in less than six days ? )
The Founding Fathers’ (and Eisenhower’s, in his warning of the military-industrial complex) worst nightmare was having a standing army. Now, their fears seem to be justified and in full bloom.
Now have four branches of government–the fourth headquartered in the Pentagon.
P.S.Every year or so Israel tests these top of the line gizmos in Gaza, south Lebanon or maybe Iran in the future and then the US can sell them to Germany, S Korea and the rest of the suckers as NEW and IMPROVED and BATTLE TESTED military toys !
“If we wait for the American President, we will have to wait for the Messiah.” Now there’s a message to Americans waiting and waiting and waiting for Obama to take the leadership on anything.
Good analysis Bruce. I knew there was something very suspicious in Slaughter’s comments but didn’t see what it was at first. My suspicion is based on her record — a liberal establishment type that has supported every US war over the last two decades and resolute supporter of Israel in the war against Palestine.
You caught her deception perfectly. What needs to be corrected is not Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, but rather resurrection of the peace process. Without a peace process the US is standing out there nakedly exposed to the whole world as Israel’s enabler. With a peace process cover, however, the ignorant Arab natives would recognize the beneficence of US intentions, according to Slaughter. I think comparing her to Dennis Ross, as someone mentioned, is accurate.
Israeli Jews permanently keep Palestine ‘off the Agenda’
Bust the framework!
‘Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem continues uninterruptedly’
And that, of course, is the whole thrust of the entire Israeli argument regarding Iran
Would Israeli rather see the world engulfed in WWIII, even with the US going up against China and India, rather than deal with Palestine? That’s exactly what Bibi has in mind.
In losing the Occupied Territories Israel loses ALL – thus all is justified
So spake Narcissus Bibi…
link to counterpunch.org
In my view, Israel’s demonization & sabre rattling re Iran is larger than merely a distraction from persisting Israeli settlement building and perpetuation of Palestinian oppression etc.
If US formed a rapprochement with Iran and by extension Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan, that power shift could force Arab states to democratize and the combination — Arabs + Iran + Iraq + Arabs states would force Israel to rethink its project of imposing its fantasy of 19th century Western “democracy” on a region that had created at least three empires while most European Jews were still subservient to their ghetto masters. Jews are even newer at the game of creating nations than the US is.
There is nothing Israel fears so much as a US-Iran alliance.
Please, it’s not about the nukes, or even oil. Strong element of financial control by means of reserve currency, but the grand prize, for Israel, is power/control of the alliances in the region. It is in Israel’s interest to keep the states in the region at each other’s throats as well as in an adversarial posture toward US.
Author writes: “Except for maybe Morocco, US military support and defense is absolutely essential to their security. These regimes could not survive without the US guarantee of protection from regime-changing internal and external threats.”
This seems the one clear error in his essay. Tremendously refreshing to have something to work with.
His own arguments defeat this claim. So why do they cling to US weaponry and bases (Bahrain, Qatar–I’d add Turkey)? I can only think it’s a cachet for them to offer their people, a logo-embossed key-chain: “We have the inside relationship with the Big Monkey.” So, again by one or two of the author’s arguments, this will turn out to be a waste of money as well as be viewed as their tyrants’ siding with US, the biggest tyrant. “Better the tyrant you know than the one you don’t” only holds as long as tyranny seems inevitable. Not only by the author’s citing of strategic factors, but many little operational and tactical developments all point to the US’s exhaustion in the region, and even the trans-Pacific “card” Obama claims to now be playing is a, ahem, damp squib, a fizzle in the works. Israel itself, let this remark provoke it if it will, is signalling its readiness to put off Armageddon until next year.
It is time for Israel to finally think about Judaism and statehood, and realize that “separation of church and state” is the only possible relationship. Only in a credible secular state structure–one which does not depend on a momentary majority–is any cultural identity sustainable. Only when my “identity” is “hands off” to the government can I be said to have one.
It seems the only flaw in Islam’s history of treatment of minorities (realizing how nebulous a concept Islam is in history, or at least Protean–I mean it is a very successful privatization of religion so that states have almost nothing to do with it, perhaps in managing money supplies without interest on loans, if that’s every actually happened) has been the payment of moderate financial penalties by non-Muslims–to my own dim historical understanding. I’d predict in general that Islamic republics of the future would have little legal difficulty with absorbing–embracing–welcoming non-Muslim populaces into what to all practical measures would be secular states. Iraq has been that, allahu akbar, and can be it again, speaking from my nine month sojourn there in 2004. “God is greater”, meaning that you’d better mind your p’s and q’s, because all the big questions are entirely beyond our ken.
We have achieved conversation.